> Hmmm number 3 doesn't seem like a negative or counter-intuitive.

This is the core of the problem: Some people like the idea of robotic, semi-scripted conversations according to a well-defined set of rules. They think that if there's a rulebook, they can predict how people will respond to them. Or worse, they think they can control how people react and respond.

Yes, we should put some constraints around egregious communication issues as well as provide general guidelines, but the important thing is to let people interact naturally within those loose constraints.

> I feel like software devs (in bay area startup world, or FAANG) are usually a certain demographic and they usually come from a place of privilege where they've never had to do the mental work that's involved in communicating effectively across diverse demographics.

It's a fallacy, though. You can't create perfect rules for human conversation. Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills, even if it's somewhat painful along the way. The basic skills can be guided with simple rules and guidelines, but the problem comes when you try to control too much of the conversation or set the constraints so tightly that it's a minefield to navigate.

I like robotic conversations at work because my work is not important to me, and I don’t want to bring my “full self” to work. I like to get in, do my shit, conduct communication in a formalized manner, and get out in 6 hours and go do stuff that matters to me.

>Some people like the idea of robotic, semi-scripted conversations according to a well-defined set of rules.

Thinking about the words you use in daily conversation with diverse peers doesn't have to be "robotic". You're just being exposed to how other people in less privileged positions have to think and act, and that's uncomfortable.

>You can't create perfect rules for human conversation.

Is anyone here claiming that their goal is perfection?

>Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills

And there's nothing wrong with receiving help and guidance while you're on that journey.

> Thinking about the words you use in daily conversation with diverse peers doesn't have to be "robotic".

I'd much rather save my mental energy for the coding.

If having to carefully think about how every turn of phrase could be seen and completely giving up on being able to make friends at work is the price of hiring less privileged people? I'd rather stay in my privileged monoculture thanks. The underprivileged can go join the company with the underprivileged monoculture and everyone can be happier, communicating in the style they prefer with people who are ok with that style.

"i cant make friends if i cant make dumb jokes about minorities and women"

you're gross.

> You're just being exposed to how other people in less privileged positions have to think and act, and that's uncomfortable.

No, it has nothing to do with that. As an unprivileged person, CoCs were harder for me to follow because I grew up using much harsher language and being more direct.

CoCs mainly seem to be about privileged people affirming to each other how “woke” they are.

It’s easy to come to a point where we only talk in coded ways to follow the letter of the rules.

People start saying “thanks for your feedback, we’ll look into this issue when planning the next iteration” as code for “you could be pissing in the wind”, and most communication becomes non sensical where you need to feel if they actually mean what they’re saying in text form.

Then we lament that face to face time is needed to communicate efficiently with people.

This is the core problem with social justice, which I support. When you have a very real problem, eg that some groups live their lives in a situation where they must police their speech and actions to fit with the dominant white male cishet culture. This is a problem, and should be noted and acknowledged. Do you not see that having as your solution "force everyone to act fake and robotic, just like excluded groups/cultures do around the dominant culture" just expands the problem?

This robotic speech is incredibly socially isolating, you end up with communities isolating into their specific groups not out of racism or sexism but because it is the path of least resistance. People in general don't want to expend time or energy learning the rulesets that each subgroup needs followed to feel included and safe. This goes for non-privileged groups as well, isolating themselves from other non-privileged groups. When going into a situation unknowing can get you shamed and called out, the path of least resistance that does not result in a negative outcome is not engaging with other groups of people unlike yourself. AKA the opposite of what our stated goals are. People don't want to act robotic, and they don't want to isolate themselves.

So asking people not to use phrases that reference their penis or urine (like pissing in the wind) is forcing people to be robotic?

Females emit urine and affected just as much by pissing into the wind.

yes

It’s interesting because I mentally don’t want people to be pissing outside of bathrooms whatever their gender.

Then when you specifically plan it, for camping in the wilderness for instance, there’s accessories that help to level the playing field (feel free to google it, it should come up with keywords like “woman camp urination portable”. It has an actual interesting story behind it and was developped by a camper that made it for her own needs at first)

5 gallon bucket, kitchen 33 gal trash bags, foam swimming pool 'noodle', paper towels (for absorbtion)

It's not environmentally friendly, but cheap for a temporary portable toilet.

Note: cut the pool noodle down and it sort snaps right on to the bucket.

> I mentally don’t want people to be pissing outside of bathrooms

You definitely wouldn't enjoy staying at my place then!

Pissing in the wind is likely going to cause a mess regardless of gender.

> Pissing in the wind is a gendered statement.

I’ve seen videos that beg to differ.

One the one hand, that is technically true. I'm sure there do exist some videos that demonstrate that fact.

On the other, across my 53+ years of living on this planet, I don't think I have yet met a single female who would try to participate in that kind of activity. And I've met more than a few males who would actually be entertained by that outcome.

So, on the weight of my own personal experience, I would have to agree with the section you quoted and responded to.

More murders are committed by males. Does that make the simple verb “murder” inherently gendered? Is that your claim? because that’s the only possible relevance your odd personal testimony seems to be implying.

no, it isn't

It is a negative. Nobody wants to navigate a social minefield where everything they say can and will be used against them in a court of public opinion. If social interaction becomes too difficult and risky, it's better to not participate at all.

This is why people get stonewalled. Why would anyone speak their mind when there are serious consequences?

You repeatedly posted flamewar comments in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> My point is that non-white non-cisgendered non-male people are already doing this in order to exist in the workplace!

I'm struggling to see how the "Don't"s in the article are associated with a particular orientation, race or sex... are you suggesting that non-white non-cisgendered non-male people can't cope with a more casual tone? Why? In my experience non-"white" people are just as casual or formal as "white" people ("white" is such a weirdly American concept, here in the UK we wouldn't want to group the Poles and the French together).

The lack of granularity in America is honestly extremely annoying to me, different states or cities generally have wildly different "white" culture, traditions, commonality, and attitudes. It is often more hidden or subtle and less overt or surface level like it is in Europe.

Equally annoying is when people attempt to define 'African-American' as though it was one homogeneous entity of experience. The experiences and struggles of a young black man in NYC is vastly different from the struggles of a young black man in rural Alabama.

This is the problem with categorization of people in general. All this "you're white", "you're black", "you're male", "you're female" is belittling because it's so surface level and ignores the depth of human experience. There's so much diversity within each of these broad categories.

In America, "white" is used instead of "European" because it's less ambiguous, since it distinguishes Americans of European ancestry from European citizens.

That being said, "white" is also ambiguous in other ways. It's generally not meant to be strictly speaking about skin color, since people with fair skin from certain parts of the middle east, for example, would not necessarily be considered to be white in this context.

> My point is that non-white non-cisgendered non-male people are already doing this in order to exist in the workplace

No they aren’t. Non-white people aren’t avoiding the use of emojis in code review and they certainly aren’t against telling someone an idea is bad.

Speaking as an old white cisgendered male, my opinion is that if you're white, cisgendered, and male, then you're playing the game of life on easy mode.

You never get a chance to even see what it's like for everyone else who is forced to play on regular mode, or worse.

Cool story. CoCs are invented by people “playing on easy mode” to signal to other easy mode players of their guilt. They do nothing to help the people on regular or hard.

you better watch it.. this could very we’ll be....mansplaining

> software devs are usually a certain demographic and they usually come from a place of privilege where they've never had to do the mental work that's involved in communicating effectively across diverse demographics.

This strikes me as a surprising assertion: most software devs (including in the Bay Area, FAANG) are recent immigrants (or temporary guest workers) who are, by definition, navigating a culture very different than the one they grew up in.

> most software devs (including in the Bay Area, FAANG) are recent immigrants

The only data I can find that speaks to that (from 2015) has far less than half foreign-born (39.2% of "software engineers", 27.4% of "computer programmers", etc.), and obviously not all of those are going to be "recent immigrants".

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/foreign-...

40% is a lot. Don't forget tech's exponential growth in jobs over the past few decades.

I’d be curious to see that from FAANG specifically, since they drive so much international hiring.

> most software devs (including in the Bay Area, FAANG) are recent immigrants (or temporary guest workers)

The only data I can find supporting this is that tech workers in Silicon Valley as a whole are majority foreign-born. But that includes everyone from Oracle to HP to Wipro, not just FAANG. (And I think the definition of Silicon Valley in this data is the traditional one, i.e., not including San Francisco.)

A subset of those are recent immigrants.